HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 193-88RESOLUTION NO. 193-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS CERTIFYING
THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (F.S.E.I.R.) FOR THE BAKERSFIELD
AIRPARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE.
WHEREAS, the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update is
proposed as a guide for overall development and improvement of
the Airpark; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield did
certify the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion Environmental Impact
Report (E.I.R.) on July 13, 1983 and it is incorporated in the
Final Supplemental E.I.R. by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental E.I.R. provides only the
information necessary to make the previous E.I.R. adequate for
the project as revised, pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) section 15163; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental E.I.R. on this proposal
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with
consultant Peat Marwick and was circulated and distributed in
accordance with the requirements of law and applicable regula-
tions; and
WHEREAS, public and private agencies and individuals
submitted written comments on the Draft Supplemental E.I.R. as
listed in the comments and responses; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and con-
ducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
in accordance with procedures required by City Resolution No.
107-86, on April 2]., 1988 at which hearing the public was enti-
tled to comment on the Draft Supplemental E.I.R.; and
WHEREAS, the consultant has responded in writing to all
significant points raised by the public and private agencies and
individuals in the review and public hearing process in the Final
Supplemental E.I.R., consisting of a Draft Supplemental E.I.R.
and comments and responses dated July, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental E.I.R., consisting of a
Draft Supplemental E.I.R. text and Comments and Responses dated
July, 1988 were reviewed, evaluated and considered by the
Planning Commission at its meeting held August 4, 1988, and that
Commission found and stated in its Resolution No. 38-88 that the
Final Supplemental E.I.R. has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State E.I.R.
Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 107-86, and the
National Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, the period for public review has been adequate;
and
WHEREAS, the various alternatives to the project,
including "no project", have been considered in the Final
Supplemental E.I.R.; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
requires one or more of the following findings as to each signifi-
cant effect:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final
E.I.R.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency mak-
ing the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final E.I.R.
WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evi-
dence in the record summarized for each identified significant or
potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement
of the facts supporting each finding:
Topograph~ and Soils. Development would result in soil dis-
placement and compaction. An area on the south side of the
Airpark, known to have soil contamination, may be needed for
expansion of airpark parking facilities.
~indings and_~Application: Finding (1) above, applies to the
entire project.
- 2 -
Supporting Facts: Only minimum amount of earthwork will be
required for Airpark development, due to the relatively flat
topography of the site. A management plan to identify and
provide contamination cleanup methods will be approved and
implemented by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County Health
Department, and State of California Health Services,
Department of Water Resources and the U.S. EPA, if any of
the contaminated area is needed for Airpark development.
Air Quality. Forecast increases in aircraft operations will
add to the emissions levels in the area.
Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to entire pro-
ject.
Supporting Facts: The project requires an air quality cer-
tificate from the Governor of California (Air Resources
Board). Cumulative impacts and mitigation measures would be
identified, providing for active implementation of tactics
outlined in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan/Non-attainment
Area Plan and consistency with the mitigation measures
required by the Casa Loma Specific Plan EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Expansion and development of
the Airpark will increase the impervious surfaces on the
Airpark. Runoff from additional paved surface would result.
Findings and Applic~!9~: Finding (1), above, applies to the
entire project.
Supporting Facts: Development will be consistent with
approved water quality and drainage plans. Implementation of
the soil contamination management plan should prevent fur-
ther contamination of surface and ground water.
Biotic Communities: Some Airpark property will be removed as
~otential habitat for some animal species. The
project site is within the range of the San Joaquin Valley
Kit Fox, a Federally listed rare, endangered or threatened
species. The Burrowing Owl has been sighted in the past on
portions of the project site. The Burrowing Owl is listed as
a sensitive species by the State of California.
Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to the entire
project.
Supporting Facts: The loss of potential habitat for the kit
fox and Burrowing Owl is marginal. No active kit fox dens
have been identified on the project site. The City of
Bakersfield, in cooperation with the U.S.F.&W.S., the
California State Department of Fish and Game and other local
agencies is currently preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan
(H.C.P.). The H.C.P. is a comprehensive resource protection
program and an essential component of an application for a
Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit from the
U.S. Department of Interior. An interim mitigation fee has
been adopted by the City of Bakersfield (Ordinance No. 3122;
City Council Resolution 183-87) for mitigating environmental
impacts resulting from property development.
However, if construction proceeds prior to H.C.P. approval,
the City shall obtain a qualified biologist to conduct a
field survey o~ the project area to locate any active kit
fox dens, thirty days prior to ground disturbance. Should
an active den be located on the project site, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service would be notified for consultation in
hand excavation of the den. If the H.C.P. is approved and a
Section 10(a) permit is issued to the City of Bakersfield
prior to construction of the project, mitigation measures
identified in the H.C.P. will be sufficient.
Should it be determined that the project may affect a
federally listed endangered and threatened species, the lead
agency involved in funding or permitting the Airpark develop-
ment must initiate consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended.
Noise: Increases in aircraft operations will increase noise
levels at and adjacent to the Airpark.
Findings and Application:
area affected by CNEL 65
aircraft operations.
Finding (3), above, applies to the
or greater as a result of increased
Supporting Facts: The CNEL 65, 70 and 75 contour lines would
be on Airpark property in 1995 and the land uses identified
within these contours are considered compatible with the
Airpark operations. The suggested land use compatibility
standards in areas exposed to aircraft noise, as derived from
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, "Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning." Year 2010 project contours for CNEL
65 and 70 extend to land uses designated for industrial uses
compatible with airport operations. The CNEL 60 to 65 con-
tour would extend into the Crystal Heights residential area.
If bona fide noise complaints increase and periodic noise
measurements show significant noise levels in relation to
compatible land use, a detailed noise compatibility study
should be conducted and impact analysis performed.
- 4 -
Traffic & Circulation: Extension of the runway and develop-
ment of the airpark facilities result in closure of East
Planz Road between South Union and Madison Avenues which
could limit access to the neighborhood east of the Airpark.
Findings and Application:
entire project.
Finding (1), above, applies to
Supporting Facies: Madison Avenue will be improved and
extended from Watts Drive to White Lane to provide access and
through circulation to residential ~eighborhoods located east
of the Airpark.
G. Socioeconomics: Development of the Airpark will require sub-
stantial financial resources.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
entire project.
Supporting Fac~s: Funding for capital improvements are eli-
gible for FAA grants in aid. Economic incentives of the
(Casa Loma) Southeast Enterprise Zone are available.
Development of the Airpark is considered a beneficial
economic impact.
WHEREAS, on the basis of Findings and Statement of
Facts, the Final Supplemental E.I.R. adequately addresses all
issues raised during the public review period, and all mitigation
measures required must be incorporated into the project to avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. Required public notices have been given.
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(F.S.E.I.R.) consists of the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (D.S.E.I.R.) dated
February 1988 and the F.S.E.I.R. (Response to
Comments and D.S.E.I.R. text amendments dated
July 1988).
That the said F.S.E.I.R. is an accurate and objective
discussion of the proposed project and adequately dis-
cusses and describes the environmental considerations
and mitigation measures.
- 5 -
The F.S.E.I.R. was presented to the City
Council, and the Council has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the
F.S.E.I.R. prior to considering the project.
Mitigation measures are required and must be
incorporated into the project (if approved)
which would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur, and where no substantial
evidence before the City that the project as
mitigated may have a significant effect on the
environment.
The Final Supplemental E.I.R. is hereby certified
as having been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and National
Environmental Policy Act.
.......... o0o ..........
- 6 -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed
and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular
meeting thereof held on September 14, 1988 , by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS CHILDS, DeMHND, SMITH, PATTY, r'ETCqSON, McDERMOTT ~ALVAGOIO
NOES: COUNCILME D,~ DER$ None
ASSENT: COUNCtLM;_-- M~EP_% None
ABSTAINING: COUN£ 1LM~MS~.'RS None
~ITY CLERK ~nd Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
September i4, 1988
MAYOR of the (.lty ~BaKersfield
APPROVED as to form:
(./ :.' /
AJS/meg '~
R RES 5
FINAL.EIR1
9/08/88
- 7 -
RESOLUTION NO. 38-88
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL E.I.R. FOR THE
BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE.
WHEREAS, the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update is
proposed as a guide for overall development and improvement of
the Airpark;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield did
certify the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion Environmental Impact
Report (E.I.R.) on July 13, 1983 and it is incorporated in the
Final Supplemental E.I.R. by reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental E.I.R. provides only the
information necessary to make the previous E.I.R. adequate for
the project as revised, pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) section 15163;
and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental E.I.R. on this proposal
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with
consultant Peat Marwick and has circulated and distributed in
accordance with the requirements of law and applicable regula-
tions;
and
WHEREAS, public and private agencies and individuals
submitted written comments on the Draft Supplemental E.I.R. as
listed in the comments and responses;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and con-
ducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
in accordance with procedures required by City Resolution No.
107-86, on April 21, 1988 at which hearing the public was enti-
tled to comment on the Draft Supplemental E.I.R.;
arid
WHEREAS, the consultant has responded in writing to all
significant points raised by the public and private agencies and
individuals in the review and public hearing process in the Final
Supplemental E.I.R., consisting of a Draft Supplemental E.I.R.
and comments and responses dated July, 1988;
and
-2-
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental E.I.R., consisting of a
Draft Supplemental E.I.R. text and Comments and Responses dated
July, 1988 were reviewed, evaluated and considered by the
Planning Commission, and that Commission found that the Final
Supplemental E.I.R. has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State E.I.R. Guidelines
and city of Bakersfield Resolution No. 107-86, and the National
Environmental Policy Act;
and
WHEREAS, the period for public review has been adequate;
and
WHEREAS, THE Final Supplemental E.I.R. is an accurate
and objective discussion of the proposed project and adequately
discusses and describes the environmental considerations and mit-
igation measures;
and
WHEREAS, the various alternatives to the project,
including "no project", have been considered in the Final
Supplemental E.I.R.;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
requires one or more of the following findings as to each
significant effect:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final
E.I.R.
Such changes or
jurisdiction of
ing the finding.
other agency or
agency.
alterations are within the responsibility and
another public agency and not the agency mak-
Such changes have been adopted by such
can and should be adopted by such other
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final E.I.R.
WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evi-
dence in the record summarized for each identified significant or
potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement
of the facts supporting each finding:
Topography and Soils. Development would result in soil dis-
placement and compaction. An area on the south side of the
Airpark, known to have soil contamination, may be needed for
expansion of airpark parking facilities.
-3-
Findings and Application: Finding (1) above, applies to the
entire project.
Supporting Facts: Only minimum amount of earthwork %~ill be
required for Airpark development, due to the relatively flat
topography of the site. A management plan to identify and
provide contamination cleanup methods will be approved and
implemented by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County Health
Department, and State of California Health Services,
Department of Water Resources and the U.S. EPA, if any of
the contaminated area is needed for Airpark development.
Air Quality. Forecast increases in aircraft operations will
add to the emissions levels in the area.
Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to entire pro-
ject.
Supporting Facts: The project requires an air quality cer-
tificate from the Governor of California (Air Resources
Board). Cumulative impacts and mitigation measures would be
identified, providing for active implementation of tactics
outlined in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan/Non-attainment
Area Plan and consistency %~ith the mitigation measures
required by the Casa Loma Specific Plan EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Expansion and development of
the Airpark will increase the impervious surfaces on the
Airpark. Runoff from additional paved surface would result.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to the
entire project.
Supporting Facts: Development will be consistent with
approved water quality and drainage plans. Implementation of
the soil contamination management plan should prevent fur-
ther contamination of surface and ground water.
Biotic Communities: Some Airpark property will be removed as
potential habitat for some animal species. The
project site is ~;ithin the range of the San Joaquin Valley
Kit Fox, a Federally listed rare, endangered or threatened
species. The Burrowing Owl has been sighted in the past on
portions of the project site. The Burrowing Owl is listed as
a sensitive species by the State of California.
Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to the entire
project.
-4-
Supporting Facts: The loss of potential habitat for the kit
fox and Burrowing Owl is marginal. No active kit fox dens
have been identified on the project site. The City of
Bakersfield, in cooperation with the U.S.F.&W.S., the
California State Department of Fish and Game and other local
agencies is currently preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan
(H.C.P.). The H.C.P. is a comprehensive resource protection
program and an essential component of an application for a
Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit from the
U.S. Department of Interior. An interim mitigation fee has
been adopted by the City of Bakersfield (Ordinance No. 3122;
city Council Resolution 183-87) for mitigating environmental
impacts resulting from property development.
However, if construction proceeds prior to H.C.P. approval,
the city shall obtain a qualified biologist to conduct a
field survey of the project area to locate any active kit
fox dens, thirty days prior to ground disturbance. Should
an active den be located on the project site, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service would be notified for consultation in
hand excavation of the den. If the H.C.P. is approved and a
Section 10(a) permit is issued to the City of Bakersfield
prior to construction of the project, mitigation measures
identified in the H.C.P. will be sufficient.
Should it be determined that the project may affect a
federally listed endangered and threatened species, the lead
agency involved in funding or permitting the Airpark develop-
ment must initiate consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended.
Noise: Increases in aircraft operations will increase noise
levels at and adjacent to the Airpark.
Findings and Application: Finding
area affected by CNEL 65 or greater
aircraft operations.
(3), above, applies to the
as a result of increased
Supporting Facts: The CNEL 65, 70 and 75 contour lines would
be on Airpark p~operty in 1995 and the land uses identified
within these contours are considered compatible with the
Airpark operations. The suggested land use compatibility
standards in areas exposed to aircraft noise, as derived from
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, "Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning." Year 2010 project contours for CNEL
65 and 70 extend to land uses designated for industrial uses
compatible with airport operations. The CNEL 60 to 65 con-
tour would extend into the Crystal Heights residential area.
If bona fide noise complaints increase and periodic noise
measurements show significant noise levels in relation to
compatible land use, a detailed noise compatibility study
should be conducted and impact analysis performed.
-5-
Traffic & Circulation: Extension of the runway and develop-
ment of the alrpark facilities result in closure of East
Planz Road between South Union and Madison Avenues which
could limit access to the neighborhood east of the Airpark.
Findings and Application:
entire project.
Finding (1), above, applies to
Supporting Facts: Madison Avenue will be improved and
extended from Watts Drive to White Lane to provide access and
through circulation to residential neighborhoods located east
of the Airpark.
G. Socioeconomics: Development of the Airpark will require sub-
stantial financial resources.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
entire project.
Supporting Facts: Funding for capital improvements are eli-
gible for FAA grants-in-aid. Economic incentives of the
(Casa Loma) Southeast Enterprise Zone are available.
Development of the Airpark is considered a beneficial
economic impact.
WHEREAS, on the basis of Findings and Statement of
Facts, the Final Supplemental E.I.R. adequately addresses all
issues raised during the public review period, and all mitigation
measures required must be incorporated into the project to avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby deter-
mines, finds and reviews as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. Required public notices have been given.
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(F.S.E.I.R.) consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (D.S.E.I.R.) dated February, 1988 and the
F.S.E.I.R. (Response to Comments and D.S.E.I.R. text amend-
ments dated July, 1988).
The Final Supplemental E.I.R. has been completed in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and National
Environmental Policy Act, and City of Bakersfield Resolution
No. 107-86.
-6-
The F.S.E.I.R. was presented to the Planning Commission, and
the Commission reviewed and considered the information con-
tained in the F.S.E.I.R. prior to considering the project.
Mitigation measures are required and must be incorporated
into the project (if approved) which would avoid or substan-
tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identi-
fied in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to
a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
there is no substantial evidence before the City that the pro-
ject as mitigated may have a significant effect on the
environment.
That the said F.S.E.I.R. is an accurate and objective dis-
cussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses
and describes the environmental considerations and mitiga-
tion measures.
8. That the various alternatives to the project, including "no
project." have been considered in the F.S.E.I.R.
9. Certification of the F.S.E.I.R. is recommended to the City
Council.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Bakersfield at the regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of
August, 1988 on a motion made by Commissioner Bjorn and seconded
by Commissioner Jarrett by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Gronbeck, Jarrett, Milazzo
Patrick, Roselieb, Cohn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DATED: August 4, 1988
r/rair
PL~NNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Y
/ ~lannlng Dl~or
EXCERPT, PL/C Minutes of 8/4/88
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BAKERSFIELD
AIRPARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Planning Director Hardisty introduced Ms. Jennie Eng, project planner
who coordinated the environmental review for this project and Mr.
Robert Olislagers, manager of the Bakersfield Municipal Airpark.
Mr. Olislagers commented that this EIR supplements the "Final
Environmental Impact Report - Bakersfield Airpark Expansion" certified
by the City Council on July 13, 1983.
The City of Bakersfield contracted with the consulting firm Peat
Marwick to prepare a Master Plan Update and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion. The Master Plan
Update includes recommending modifications to the airport layout and
development plans. Implementation of the Master Plan update would be
staged over a 20 year planning period.
Staff recommended that the FSEIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA and NEPA and adequately described the environmental setting,
impacts and mitigation for the project described.
Mr. Olislagers further indicated that required public notices were
given. The FSEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and the
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the
FSEIR prior to considering the project.
Commissioner Cohn stated that this was not a public hearing but would
entertain brief comments.
Mr. Harlan Hunter representing the People's Missionary Baptist Church
stated that the report fails short on some of their concerns regarding
air quality, noise level and division of the community by the expansion
of the airpark. He also stated he was concerned with regard to cleanup
of the contaminated area.
Councilman Salvaggio commented that the Council has selected a consult-
ant to assess what contamination there is at the airpark and that the
FFA made a preliminary decision to fund the cleanup of the hazardous
waste at the airpark.
Motion was made by Commissiner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Jarrett,
Commission adopted resolution to certify the Final SEIR with findings
a. through f. on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and recommended same
to the City Council, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Gronbeck, Jarrett,
Patrick, Milazzo, Rosenlieb, Cohn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
111u~i , P1/C, 4/21/88 ,, ,, Page 8
C HEARING - STREET VACATION OF 9TH STREET BETWEEN H AND EYE
ND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 48 (continued)
eller representing St. Francis Church indicated that the two
the church owns on the south side of 9th Street have been
mercial property to the south. They were the primary
r the church will continue to provide parking for the
s. The church is going to deed over five feet of
,to the Mixon property. The five feet on the west
lot will be deeded t~that property to enable the church to develop ten
parking spaces off the alley.
Mr. Mueller was amenable t~e conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Larry Mixon stated that th~ :hurch had worked long and hard on this
project with the neighbors has the concerns of the
neighbors.
Motion was made by Commissioner )ursuant to Government Code
65402, to find the closing of 9th Street tween "H" Street and Eye
Street and a portion of the alley in is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Bakersfield and ~rt same to the City
Council with the following recommendations:
Easements shall be reserved for any publ
utility facilities or public sewer lines
remaining within area to be vacated.
A 25 foot wide east/west extension of the
alley in Block 48 between "H" Street and
Eye Street shall be dedicated, including
10' x 10' corner cut-offs and constructed
to City Standards.
Street improvements (curb and gutter, sidewalk,
paving) shall be constructed to City Stand-
ards along "H" and Eye Streets to close
vacated portion of 9th Street.
11. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT - BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Hardisty entered into the record, letters received from the
Department of Planning and Development Services County of Kern, U.S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife Services, Kern County Fire Department
and the Bakersfield City School District in addition to others included
in the Appendix of the EIR.
Mr. Hardisty introduced Mr. Robert Olislagers, Airpark Manager.
Mr. Olislagers informed Commission that the document is a supplement to
the original EIR which was completed in 1983. This document meets both
the federal as well as the state requirements.
Minutes, PL/C, 4/21/88 Page 9
11. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF DSEIR BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report runway realignment and the
relocation of the principal taxi way thus reducing the noise level for
the residential areas. The SEIR also addresses the issue of toxic
waste at the air park by providing areas where contamination has been
identified allowing the city adequate time to address these issues.
The SEIR also addresses to a greater extent, endangered species.
He also stated tha~ the change in the major activity center having
shifted those centers away from the residential area and placed them
along the west side of the airport.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Martin Milobar was concerned about the proposed fencing around the
project to limit access on the east side of the extension of Madison
Avenue.
Mr. Olislagers replied that the fencing for the airpark would specifi-
cally be a peripheral fencing that would meet federal requirements.
There is a sump that will be located outside of the airport property
that would also be fenced along the same guidelines that would provide
for a corridor.
Mr. Harlan Hunter spoke on behalf of the People's Missionary Baptist
Church and interested parties in area of the airpark indicating that
the report fell short in providing feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives to improve the air quality. The expansion would also
increase the noise level in and around the airpark. He also stated
that the study does not take into consideration the amount of indus-
trial vehicle traffic that will be caused as a result of this expansion
project.
He was also concerned with the cleanup of the contamination on the
site, and the increase of traffic on Madison Avenue due to cutting East
of East Planz Road being cut in two. He further stated they had asked
the city to look into the socio-economic problem as a result of East
Planz Road being cut in two.
He also felt shat the city has to enact a relocation plan under the
California Relocation Act because of the possibility of displaced
persons due to this expansion.
Minutes, P1/C, 4/21/88 Page 10
11. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF DSEIR BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Curtis James resident of Census Tract 22 agreed with Mr. Hunter's
comments. However, if this project does not pick up momentum very
readily, the city will loose it.
Ms. Elinor Montecino, resident on Madison Avenue was concerned that the
expansion bring in more planes and buildings with high fences. She was
concerned about the value of her home.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Milazzo, seconded by Commissioner
Gronbeck, Commission referred all comments to staff for preparation and
inclusion in the Final EIR.
12. REQUEST FROM SALVATION ARMY TO CLOSE THE ALLEY IN BLOCKS 220 AND 221 OF
THE GODEY TRACT
The Salvation Army requested that the alley in Blocks 220 and 221 of
the Godey Tract be closed for future development.
Frank Sousa owner of a building at 20th and "V" Streets indicating
ils property goes to the center of the alley and was concerned
:cess and easements to his gas lines.
Mr. Art
study.
Engineer IV suggested a two week continuance for further
Motion was made
Commission
ommissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Patrick,
his item to the May 5, 1988 meeting.
13. REQUEST FROM GARY
FOOT WIDE PUBLIC
RY L. GERLICH FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE FIVE
~EMENT IN LOT 11 OF TRACT 4650
Mr. and Mrs. Gerlich have
public utilities easement in Lot
abandonment of the five foot wide
Tract 4650.
Mr. Hardisty indicated that the is being requested because
another utility easement which runs slic south of the proposed
abandonment has been granted to the utilit, ipany and it does overlap
somewhat on the western edge.
Motion was made by Commissioner Patrick pursuant to~X~vernment Code
Section 65402 to find the abandonment of the five foot~jde public uti-
lity easement in Lot 11 and 38, as dedicated by Tract 46!~t~is consis-
tent with the general plan of the City of Bakersfield and ~ort same
to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner JarN t, and
carried. ~
· 8/20/87 Page 4
?. PUBLIC RE~RING - AMENDING CIRCULATION ELEMENT "K" STREET FRO~ 17TH
$~E£C %0 11)~JC STREET (continued)
Mr. Ken Pulskamp,~istant City Manager stated he is not positive
%hat there is an~hin~ fully satisfy the Bank nf An~rica and sug-
dested a two.week continu'~2~e to have an opportunity to meet with Bank
~f America and make sure we ~ly understand their concerns and deal
with the developer to try and wo'r.k.,~omething out that is satisfactory
for the parties' involved. ~
Motion was mad b C StUd' 1 her Patrick, se't'~L~_ded by Commissioner
Jarrett, Commi ~ tied thi~ h?rin~ to_'~..September 3rd meeting
and refer this 't t t~ em o e General Plan Committee~.~.~.
STREET VACATIO~TREET BETWEEN I?TH A~l~.~lSTH STREETS
AND ALSO THE ALLEY 1N B~OCK 272 ~
Motion was made by Commissioner Jartart, seconded by Commis~ione[. ~
Patrick, Commission cnntinued this item to the September 3rd meeting. ~
g. )NFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP - BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Robert Dlislagers, Airpark Manager, Economic Development Division
stated that the city is currently undergoing its master plan update
with a consulting firm and with the exception of EIR about 80 percent
of the study has been completed.
He then reviewed the various subsections of the master plan.
qn G~N~RAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (SEC. 654D2(a) OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE)-
~"' A~O~TION OF 25 5 ACRrS OF REAL PROPERT)LOCATED SOUTH/SOUTHWESI OF
~ CHE EXISTING BAKE~SFIEk~ AIRPARK ,
~bject properties are located north of White ~ane south of Planz Road.
Cur nt zonino for the subject properties is "Special Use" (Casa Loma
~:ci~'c~Plen: 1986) a,,d present owners operate under "legal non-
co nf orm~'~q.u se" guidel ~nes.
Mot'on~ was m-~e by Commissioner Patrick, seconded by CommiSsioner
jarrett, CommiSsion found the proposed acquisition of approximately
25.5 acres o~ re~,l, property consistent with the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area G'aQerel Plan and the Casa Lom~ Specific Plan as to
its ocl ati no, purpose'~.a~nd extent· as required bJ Government Code,
S tion 6s o <a
~STR Etl T VAC.. A'IO~ N - REQUEST B'~F~J.D. AXTELL TO VACATE AN il.25 FOOT WIDE
STRtP ALONG THE WEST SlOE OF '~' STREET NORTHERLY 0~ 3~TH STREEi.
Repuest was made by J.D. Axtell~r-~the vacation of an 11.25 foot wide
strip along a portion of the west sil)e.~of "O" Street northerly of 34th
i~ie~ilntv Community Development Departmen~t~'~!t .as ~ropOsed cOnstructiOn
of curds ~nd outtars in that portion of the v~acating area between 3~th
anO 36t~ Streets. The County has agreed that the.~abanoonment will have
no negative effect on their project. ~
Discussion took place as to no curb and gutter on the's~e of the pro-
posed vacation. ~
Motion was made by Con~issioner Bjorn, pursuant to Governments. Code
65a02, to find the vaoation of an 11.25 foot wide strip along a~N~ortion
of the west side of "0" Street northerly of 3~th Street is consis~e~nt
with the General Plan of the City of Bakersfield and report the same~to
th~ ritv Council with the recommendation that easements be reserved fo~
an'e~is~inR water main and a public storm drain line. Motion was sec-
onded by Commissioner Jartart. and carried. ~
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting of August 4, 1988
AGENDA ITEM
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT:
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the
Bakersfield Airpark Expansion Master Plan Update -
Recommendation Action
Pursuant to city Resolution 107-86, XI B.1, the Planning
Commission shall determine whether or not to recommend certifica-
tion that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and City Resolution 107-86. The
following is an excerpt from CEQA to assist the decision-makers
in making a determination on EIR adequacy.
STanDARDS FOR ADEQUACY OF AN EIR
CEQA Section 15151.
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decision-makers with information which enables them to
make a decision which intelligently takes account of environ-
mental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects
of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency
of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably
feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inade-
quate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagree-
ment among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy completeness, and a good faith effort
at full disclosure.
NOTE:
Certification of an EIR indicates only that the decision-
makers feel 'that the FSEIR adequately addresses the impacts
of the specific project analyzed. It in no way indicates
support or non-support for the project itself and should
not be interpreted as doing so.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This EIR supplements the "Final Environmental Impact Report -
Bakersfield Airpark Expansion" certified by the City of
Bakersfield City Council on July 13, 1983. In accordance to CEQA
Section 15163, this document provides only the information neces-
sary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as
revised.
Staff Report, PL/C, 8/4/88
Bakersfield Airpark FSEIR (continued)
Page 2
The City of Bakersfield has contracted with consulting firm Peat
Marwick to prepare a Master Plan Update and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Bakersfield Airpark expan-
sion. The Master Plan Update includes recommending modifications
to the airport layout and development plans. Implementation of
the Master Plan update would be staged over a 20 year planning
period. The primary development items include:
Construction of a replacement runway 16-34, 4,000 feet long
by 75 feet wide.
- Continued use and expansion of the existing fixed based
operator and aircraft storage areas.
Acquisition Of approximately 25 acres.
Provision for improvements to realign Madison Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Environmental impacts of the project are documented ill the FSEIR,
which is composed of the DSEIR (February, 1988) and the FSEIR
(July, 1988). Table 1 (pages 3 and 4) of the FSEIR lists the
environmental impacts and recommends mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures have been included to eliminate, avoid or
substantially lessen all significant effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur and where there is no
substantial evidence before the city that the project as miti-
gated may have a significant effect on the environment.
STAFF ADEQUACY STATEMENT:
Staff recommends that the FSEIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and NEPA and adequately describes the environmental
setting, impacts and mitigation for the project described.
RECOMMENDED DECISION-MAKER FINDINGS:
a. Required public notices were given.
The FSEIR consists of the DSEIR dated February, 1988 and the
FSEIR (Response to Comments and DSEIR text amendments) dated
July, 1988.
c. The F~nal Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and NEPA.
do
The FSEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and the
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained
in the FSEIR prior to considering the project.
Staff Report, PL/C, 8/4/88
Bakersfield Airpark FSEIR (continued)
Page 3
Mitigation measures are required and must be incorporated
into the project (if approved) which would avoid or substan-
tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identi-
fied in the FEIR to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur, and where no substantial evidence before
the City that the project as mitigated may have a significant
effect on the environment.
f. Certification of the FEIR is not to be interpreted as support
or non-support for the project as described in FSEIR.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to adopt resolution to certify the Flnal SEIR %~ith find-
ings a. through f. on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and recom-
mend same to the City Council.
IF NO CERTIFICATION:
If the Commission does not find that the FEIR satisfies CEQA &
NEPA requirements of being an informational document which ade-
quately informs the decision-makers of the environmental effects
of the project, identifies possible ways to minimize significant
effects and describes reasonable alternatives to the project
(CEQA Sections 15121 and 15151), then certification would not be
warranted.
IMPLICATIONS OF NO CERTIFICATION:
Prior to the decision-making body acting to approve the Master
Plan Update, the Final SEIR must be certified. I~ certification
is not recommended, the Commission should state specific informa-
tion to be provided through further study and the detail desired.
A decision to approve the project would have to be delayed until
the EIR is satisfactory.
p/srap
'BAKr. LRSF IELD
MASTER PLAN
AiRPARK
UPDATE
WATTS
DRIVE
i_J!,
t~ - .-
t
t
LEGEND
------ PROJECT SITE
..... NEW RUNWAY
ALIGNMENT
SCALE IN FEET